Would you recommend the 25 or 50s?
27752
I would definitely get the 50s. The 25 is a great little toy but if you want photos you can keep get the 50!
27753
The 50s because it is an upgraded version of the 25 with a couple of new features. Their both cool cameras though. The 90 is the best but expensive.
27754
I prefer 50s because it looks more expensive and elegant than the 25. (Doesn't look like a toy) but other than that they are almost same size and works the same. The shape of 50s is also more square. It really comes down to personal preference.
27755
50s that's what I have, cute compact, the film is credit card size, I like the piano color , and the make and model, I know , it's not a car. I love my 50s
873452
Another option is getting the 50mm 1.8 for about a hundred bucks. Takes great shots and you can still buy the 28-135. I bought my 28-135 used and love having both lenses.
912799
Sorry not at um I think the 24 is a little small not as big as pict. Go for the 48 .I have one of each
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
599733
Oh, and 25s are the only plates I have tried. Am pretty sure 45s would be too large.
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!
1967330
The 25 will get you a larger( closer) image than the 12. It really depends on what you want the image to be. I'm using the 25, But mainly on my 100-400 telephoto so I can focus closer on small wild life. My lens only focuses down to about 6 feet. the 25 lets me get as close as 2, Not really macro work but it suits my needs. Hope that helps.
1456961
I've owned both lenses and the 50 1.4 has a better build quality, the larger aperture will also give you shallower DOF which might help with portraits, and it should focus faster. Unless you plan on doing a lot of macro photography with your lens I'd go with the 50 1.4.
977743
i mean ,25 aren't necessary in my opinion. i think for wars you could prob use .12 but .20 would be better. The hop up is not very effective honestly, but the spread is better with .12 and faster bullets, so close range; and .2 are close spread and very accurate, so long range effective. so just for playing around use .12, save some money. this is my opinion. .12 wont jam or destroy the gun as well, i use them all the time, its a shotgun. dont listen to "Zincscott" no effense
1135875
IMO no. The 35mm or Zeiss 24mm would be much better. If you are outdoors, the 50mm is ok, but if someone is right near you, or you want a landscape/building shot, the focal length of the 50 will be too long. (I own the Zeiss 24 and this 50)
2068756
Hi K. Johnson-I have been mulling over this very same thing.....I have decided on the 24-105 for a 50d. You may find this website helpful: www.the-digital-picture.com Has a nice review of canon lens recommendations which helped me to decide. Good luck!
2184062
Absolutely. The 5.30 is wider of course, but also taller and I love that. I just took an 800 mile plus trip and they were great. That's a lot of revolutions so taller makes less of them. I would never buy another 4.80 myself.
1189943
My roommate has the 425s and he said the 535s were noticeably better. I have only owned the 535s, however.
1448670
Not if you'd like the flexibility of upgrading to a full-frame sensor camera body down the road.The 50D has the smaller APS-C size sensor so it won't be using the full extent of the this lens, but there isn't a smaller EF-S lens that's f/1.4 so if it's fast glass you want, then this is the 24mm to get.
1589715
In simple terms, the bigger the number, the greater the zoom. The 17-50 will allow you to get close and to shoot wide angle. The 28-75 will allow you to shoot a little farther away. You probably want the 28-75 unless you need to get super close to something. I have a 17-50 and a 70-200. I use the 17-50 to shoot basketball games and get right under the basket. I use the 70-200 for football games because the action is farther away from the sideline. Unless you need to get really close to something, or need a wide angle (like a dance group at a rally), you probably want the 28-75.
463551
It really depends on the subject and type of photography your shooting. I would suggest that you download the lens manuals for all your lenses and make your own decision. With the 25 you get greater magnification factor but less fucusing range. Also the 25 you have to get closer to your subject and may need a lens mounted ring flash for outdoor shooting in low light. I must stress that you do your research on all your lenses. Jerry Stahl
1178421
I am leaning towards the 230 mainly because of price. I compared the 230 and 240 in a side by side list and other than a difference in programs (240 has more) and warranty (230 is better) I don't see the advantage in paying $50 more.